Looks like Kayani did make some promises that resulted in the subsequent softening of the tone from USA
they want us to attack N. Waziristan where allegedly Haqqanis have a base; they've told us to attack Quetta too in the past though we never hear much about so-called "Quetta Shura" anymore
Pakistan will not blindly comply to outrageous requests, especially those that go against our national interests...and most especially those that are issued in the media and not even presented with proper evidence. Time and time again our side asks for evidence and we get replies on CNN and New York Slimes --which is typical.
suffice to say, none of these demands have been heeded to and therefore Pakistan is facing inexorable pressure due to its policy of non-compliance. I personally believe that this is the right policy; hours upon hours are placed upon threat assesments, hours and hours are placed upon cause & effect analysis, hours and hours are placed upon discussing strategies their implementation and of course contingency plans.
none of the blind, evidence-devoid "demands" will be heeded to as long as they conflict with our domestic interests as well as interests in the region.
so therefore, a "talks" in Geneva or a briefing in Lisbon or even a so-called "tough message" (we've heard them all
) would do little i think to cause any major paradigm shift. It just means we will have to be on extra guard and vigil, since non-compliance with these mighty countries as they see themselves would have some ramifications --some which could effect our economy and even our national security (i wont delve into details).
What we can agree on is that terrorists must not be able to have sanctuary in Pakistan but we differ in our approach towards COIN. And in fact, we've had many succesful operations (ongoing and completed) which have helped cleanse areas of terrorists --in some cases remnants will move out and re-organize once spring season begins. But we are doing something about it and have seen great results.
as we are not in charge of Afghan affairs and have little say in how they ensure terrorists do not cross from Afghan side or lodge artillery on our civvy/para-milly positions --we can only work with tangibles and things within our locus of control. Few people talk about NATO compliance with Pakistani genuine concerns --so why in God's name would tread along their lines when they see partnership as more of a 1-way thing
partnership last time i checked is a 2-way thing. It requires trust.
at this critical juncture, there is no trust. Can it be rebuilt or not --well for starters, the blame games and finger pointing must end. Sending raymond davis's to Pakistan is a grave error and i think after being caught with their pants down last spring, one would HOPE that they would never make that mistake again or even contemplate it. They would also take note of our concerns about indian sponsored terrorism against Pakistan using Afghan soil. The Afghans themselves ought to know that they have MUCH more to lose from allowing that to happen. I think quite frankly, a 'reminder' would be in order but that's up to the policy makers.
IF they don't, they (ISAF coalition, the Afghans) risk losing a country which they claim they need to get out of this mess and help in the reconciliation process.
